NOTE ITEM A: Like all things including knowledge and
good movies, there is more free gold available to you in Alaska
than you can possibly use, literally. I can refer you to plenty
of good gold ground openly available. You just have to wash the
gold out of a lot of dirt and rocks, so many cubic yards of dirt
and rocks that only miners who invest their time to learn the
finer points of gold mining techniques can derive more income
from that horribly boring process than a computer techy sitting
on his bottom side all day enduring his horribly boring process.

Likewise, there is a lot of reading on the Related Concepts
pages. It all holds proverbial gold, but your mind will not recognize
the value in the vast majority of it. Of that you may be assured,
or it would not contain value beyond what your mind currently
recognizes. Read this slowly. Your mind must find the few arrangements
of words herein that come enticingly close to your brain's prior,
word-arrangement-created receptors that therefore create your
questions that therefore jeopardize those receptor sites that
are therefore vulnerable to new, verifiable data creating new
conclusions which open yet more new receptors prior occupied with
now verifiably contradicted data. It is just a boring process,
like washing dirt, but it is the only way for a human mind to
find the gold of new knowledge. There is no other mechanism for
a human mind to learn new knowledge.

Only new knowledge acquired by your mind will solve your existing
problems. No volume of old knowledge, police, armies or bombs
can solve your existing problems, because your problems were created
within that old knowledge.

Herein you are looking for the recognizable section, or paragraph,
or sentence, or phrase that creates your questions that create
new knowledge that reveals the gold in more of the sections.

It is emphasized, that without the identity of your particular
problem or goal, and your mind's questions to each identified
contradiction, each concept expressed herein is random, and thus
requires your great effort to rearrange them to create their utility
in your mind. When otherwise applied in a manner designed for
your goal and your questions, such as in a seminar, the process
is highly efficient.

If you wish to read only one concept among these pages,
after the following two sections, consider the section titled,
Analogy, Intellectual Martial Arts, on
the Related Concepts 2 page. But read it carefully.

An initial consideration...

It is just a puzzle, the most brilliantly designed puzzle available
for humans to figure out. It is analogous to a steel ring puzzle.
No form of force, no matter how great or slight, or how seemingly
designed for the parts of the puzzle, can achieve the goal. No
flaw can be utilized. Knowledge alone is the key. When each part
of the knowledge puzzle is easily placed in its proper position,
the goal is achieved with such ease you will literally laugh the
laughter sought by all people. Knowledge of the puzzle can be
used to promptly resolve the most complex contradictions or achieve
goals commonly thought impossible. It concurrently illuminates
the disproof of the process currently frustrating all the institutions.
The puzzle is therefore the most frustrating puzzle humans will
ever encounter. Its controlling disguise is the zenith of simplicity.
You have already identified most of the parts. And anyone can
learn how to solve it. You need only ask and answer your questions.

When you encounter a concept or expression which your mind
rejects or opposes because it recognizes a contradiction, the
less thinking person will attempt to disprove the concept or argue
against it, thus simply restating what he already knows, while
the more thinking person will attempt to prove or support the
contradiction to his knowledge, thus more thoroughly analyzing,
questioning or synthesizing it with what he already knows, thus
creating new knowledge. Within the latter, one questions their
own prior perceptions in relation to the contradicting data. If
one's prior data was valid, it will survive every new question.
If it contained a flaw, the corrected part of the data is what
you want for the next questions. It is the greater number of questions
which will identify the prevailing proof or disproof.

Notice that individual thinkers can readily question their
prior data, thus advancing their knowledge, while people in institutions
do not do so for each item of data that contradicts an institutional
concept, or they would not be associated with the institution,
thus stagnating their mind in institutional dogma. The less thinking
person within the institution simply fails or refuses to recognize
that institutional concepts are nothing more than individual concepts
that more people failed to adequately question due to their individual
impatience with asking questions, and the appearance of no need
to do so from the perceived agreement by other people, often including
those who are older, more knowledgeable, more educated, more experienced,
the leader, the boss, the official, the superior, and every such
perception, except, the more questioning people, or they would
be openly questioning what was suggested as not adequately questioned.

For how many thousands of years did all the institutions believe
that Earth was flat? How many current institutional perceptions
are in error?

The individual thinker immediately recognizes that the above
has already made the institutional thinker's mind defensive rather
than curious, and thus blocks its access to any value in the below
information. The conclusion is correct. Intellectual technology
cannot be accessed with any contradiction left in place within
any concept, such as a typical marketing effort to entice a mind
into a program or concept by initially omitting mention of the
ultimate cost, the downside, things uncomfortable, or minor contradictions.
The humor in the above is that the institutional conclusion as
perceived before question is usually not at issue, but details
within it. You may wish to utilize that knowledge for each concept
you encounter.

There can be no process to resolve any contradiction later,
because later the mind will be attempting to resolve other contradictions
with what is the earlier contradiction left in place for each
therefore flawed decision leading to later. Yet contradictions
are introduced with nearly each sentence, including those sentences
attempting to resolve a contradiction. At the get-go, every female
paying attention to words noticed in the first sentence of the
above second paragraph of this section that apparently only males
are more or less thinking, by a linguistic convention of distinguishing
between males and females for common reference to people, then
adopting one gender for general use in exchanging knowledge, excluding
the other by definition. If you think the contradiction does not
alter your perceptions, imagine the result in the male mind if
every female writer adopted the words, she, her and hers, for
every general reference to people, without exception. The contradiction
was created in language, for an intriguing reason not available
to the common recognition at the time, left in place, and therefore
created an equally intriguing extent of contradictions. Therefore,
the process to resolve contradictions while they are being created
even by the resolution process must involve a unique or quantum
difference from normal process.

If this arena of knowledge were that of math, physics, carpentry,
sociology, farming, computer programming or any other single discipline,
it would initially sound more difficult but be easier to introduce
for a general understanding. The difficulty in introducing an
understanding of intellectual technology is in its remarkable
simplicity obscured by the most brilliant disguise capable of
being described. It is the difference between what your mind inherently
knows or learns from its designed mechanism, and an obscure contradiction
instilled into your mind from your first interactions with every
other person's mind which communicated and acted from an institutional
concept, such as the institutions of parents, adults, school,
math, physics, farming, office work, politics, philosophy, law,
comedy or any concept identified by a word which defines a set
of preconceptions created by two or more minds. It is the difference
between the individual mind and the social or organizational mind,
each completely valid in themselves, but only capable of sustainably
resolving contradictions when the line-item mechanism, the cogs,
gears, circuits, blue prints, links, ingredients, parts, materials,
process, elements and quarks of that ,"difference",
itself are laid out for inspection and arranged in their short
but proper order.

The following are only excerpts of concepts. With no identified
goal or problem to structure the presentation, and no questions
from the reader to create a structure, they are random and incomplete.
They may assist persons considering the utility of Alaska Intech's
services, or those persons wishing to independently advance their
thinking process. These are only random excerpts, for lack of
your patience and identified incentive to carefully read even
this much.

For these concepts to be of utility, you would have to genuinely
understand their magnitude and related details, as well as concepts
beyond the scope of these excerpts, and then synthesize them with
an orderly process to resolve each contradiction perceived in
itself and in resultant synthesis. Therein you would have to ask
and answer many questions, done efficiently only with the knowledge
of how to ask effective questions, which cannot be conveyed outside
a structured question and answer exercise, but can be learned
on one's own with great patience.

The following categories or parts of the puzzle often overlap.
When presented in a seminar, connected at their effective junctions
by questions, they consistently overlap to create the whole of
the puzzle when the parts are learned and synthesized by result
of the seminar process.

To fail to remember that these concepts are only fragments
of a puzzle, and to object to any perception rather than write
your resulting question, answer it, or seek the answer in other
concepts and your subsequent thought, is to fail the utility of
these words, as so common to institutional minds which begin their
thought pattern with a prior flawed conclusion rather than a question.

Listen carefully to your words as you read this.

The Meaning Of The Words...

You train your mind by the words you use. One's own commonly
sloppy and inaccurate use of words and their meanings create most
of the contradictions in one's mind. The accurate use of words,
imperative for resolutions of complex contradictions, requires
the slower use of words, because the mind is dealing with accurate
definitions, that is, more words for each individual word in a
reasoning-trail. The otherwise tedious mental work of devising
sustainable resolutions to complex contradictions, is made highly
efficient by the prior tedious work of learning how to accurately
use words. The time expended on that part of the puzzle is both
imperative and creates the greatest value from the process.

Lifetimes are routinely wasted unsuccessfully attempting to
achieve goals that could have been achieved in a week if the person
so attempting simply used a few days to learn how to accurately
use the words said person was otherwise using.

The words herein carry their full meaning, and are understatements
to the reader's perceptions.

The shortcoming of this format is that the reader will most
likely not recognize the accuracy of the words since they imply
and allude to something beyond the reader's current knowledge,
a nebulous arena made clear only by the accurate synthesis of
all the precisely defined words that are offered. Questioning
one's perceptions is the obvious resolution to that contradiction.
Inherent to every human mind, the reader must be able to effectively
question his perceptions of the words, to guide those perceptions
to his mind's recognition of their utility.

The imperative of your spending more time with just the concept
of words is demonstrated by your easy observation that the other
guy sloppily uses the meanings of his words, and is not going
to do any better than that. He sincerely believes that he is effectively
communicating what he is thinking. That is especially so if he
holds an institutional title convincing him that his words are
those of a leader. Therefore, besides your own effort in this
regard, you must learn his half of the mutual effort to derive
the difference between his real goal and his sloppily used words.
He will often not be able to describe his real goal, because he
trained his mind by the words he used, when, as used, they did
not hold the meaning he originally intended. You may be assured
that your assumptions of his real goal are wrong, because you
did the same thing with words. When you belatedly learn how to
accurately use words, you will laugh robustly over any such assumptions.

The problem is compounded among eloquent speakers, especially
those with staff writing their speeches. Eloquent speech creates
easily understood and comfortable images, by definition. Eloquent
speech, like inspiring quotes, is superficial fluff, candy to
the ears. Such word construction is the learned process of causing
emotion-based reactions. Such words are a dead-end for achieving
goals beyond creating popularity and raising money from speaking.
The popularity of such words, in themselves creating the popularity
of the speaker and thus his institutional leadership positions
followed by many people, is precisely the reason you are still
trying to solve the problems that great speakers said they were
solving throughout every century since speaking was invented.

The other guy's concepts or word meanings, portrayed with everything
except words illuminating those concepts and meanings, must be
turned into your mind's concepts and meanings, just to start the
process of resolving a contradiction he facilitates. And you must
do all the mental work because it is certain that he will not,
or the contradiction would have already been resolved. When you
do that work, your opponent's ignorance is your advantage.

Watch the frustration of institution leaders who ascribe all
manner of illogical excuses for the actions of inherently equal
humans who oppose the institutions of those leaders. Are not the
identified contradictions resolved by the use of words? Is it
not therefore proven that the leaders do not know the effective
word arrangements? Since both sides claim to be speaking truth,
often in the same language or with quality translators, and both
sides are comprised of common humans with the same design of brain,
and both sides blame the other side, if their own concept of blaming
the other guy is accurate in itself, is it not inherent that their
failure is in not understanding their own words?

The problem you face therefore starts with the understanding
of words, and will remain a problem for many more centuries, unless
the person who wishes to solve the problem tediously learns the
accurate use of words. If you do not wish to think more thoroughly
about the words you are using, hearing and reading, such as by
simply reading more slowly and thinking about the relationship
of each phrase to the previous one and next one, there is nothing
at this web site which can be of any value to you. In an Alaska
Intech seminar, you will efficiently learn a process for highly
accurate word usage, not found in the following for simple inability
to identify and answer your mind's questions in this format. Therefore,
if you are on your own, write and answer every question you identify
from the following.

Definition creation...

Tools are made with tools. Steel hammers are used to make steel
hammers. To refuse to learn how the device was made, is to deny
your access to its greatest utility. Intellectual technology is
the greatest utility of words. With it you can achieve that which
is beyond your current imagination, and that which has frustrated
humans since their invention. Start with any word in the dictionary,
and define each word defining it, just for what you learn from
that exercise, then read this section.

The meaning of a word is created by ascribing to the word arrangements
of other words that cause the mind to identify consistent relationships
which therefore become useful for further communication. It starts
rather arbitrary, but ultimately results in any questions of the
meanings producing the same answers, relationships or functional
concepts among different people.

The same process facilitates the invention of new words, phrases,
sentences, paragraphs and more, to convey any knowledge. Of course
the more words one uses to more precisely limit the concept thus
more effectively used, the greater the opportunity for confusion
in sheer volume of words, and thus the greater value of the related
goal if a person persists to its achievement. To reduce the confusion
caused by word-volume, people attempt to use less words, but that
creates the greater confusion inherent to different minds (data-bases)
creating diverse perceptions not limited by the additional explanations.

There is no easy escape. If you wish to successfully convey
a concept with words, rather than just state it, the concept of
greater value will require more words in explanation or definition,
concurrent to answering inherent questions. Therein is a conceptual
definition of, value, for concepts conveyed by words. The value
was created by the time and effort to successfully transfer an
understanding of something. Value may also be achieved by explaining
nothing to another person, and instead achieving the described
goal by yourself, defined by the time it requires one person to
do so. Therein value is conceptually defined by time, regardless
of whether it required a little effort from each of many people
who learned their part, or required a lot of effort from one person
who had to do everything.

The originally involved knowledge had to be learned. That is
what you must learn to utilize intellectual technology. It is
the whole of a complex puzzle. Therein your goal will be to optimize
the puzzle's utility at an apex of the concept. Therein you must
learn what others do not hold the mental energy to learn, but
only because they did not recognize its brilliantly simple, original
disguise. Patiently wade through abject boredom in learning some
basics about words.

Consider the explained definition of intellectual technology,
starting at Webster's perception of two different words, and then
refining it with more words so you understand and can thus use
the concept.

Intellectual: of or relating to the intellect or its use, developed
or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience,
relating to the capacity for knowledge and rational or intelligent
thought.

Technology: a technical method of achieving a practical purpose,
the totality of the means employed to provide objects necessary
for human sustenance and comfort, the method and means to achieve
a goal.

Intellectual Technology: the method and means to achieve a
goal or practical purpose by utilizing rational or intelligent
thought, effected by flawless thought process resolving contradictions.

The combination of selected, elsewhere standardized word arrangements
created a definition, which was then refined by adding related
words, available for question to add further arrangements of words
finding recognition in each mind asking the questions.

Achieve: carry out successfully, to attain a desired end or
aim.

To solve problems, is to resolve identified contradictions,
is to clear the path to achieving goals.

To use flawless thought process facilitates discovery of flaws
in all for which the process is used, including itself, by comparing
what is perceived as flawless with the concept being considered.
When different arrangements of words are applied, the inherent
questions created by different arrangements of words will identify
no new contradictions if the process or concept is in fact flawless.

Solution: an action or process of solving a problem, an answer
to a problem, explanation.

Solve: to find a solution, such as for a problem.

Resolve: to reduce by analysis, to find an answer, to make
clear or understandable.

Contradiction: a logical incongruity, opposition of factors
inherent in a system or situation.

Logical: being in accordance with logic, formally true or valid.

Incongruity: Via Incongruous: not harmonious, not conforming,
inconsistent within itself.

Note that for their lack of intellectual technology to resolve
all contradictions, Webster and his successors leave a flaw in
place for their definition of, contradiction. There can be no
logical incongruity. The incongruity is resolved by further questioning,
or the referenced logic fails to verify the incongruity as a genuine
incongruity. Because so many humans hold inadequate patience for
the questioning-process they leave in place many obscure flaws
that they either ignore or define as mysteries, which cause their
subsequent problems demanding more time than the process to correct
the flaw in the first place, an exercise of which you are currently
reading. The advancement of human understanding may also be called
a word game, but by any name, is a process to identify and correct
every contradiction, for which the mind is designed.

If the achievement of your particular goal was predicated on
understanding a contradiction, by use of that word, you want to
accurately use that word for your own mind's advancement of solutions
to the contradiction.

Fortunately, to utilize intellectual technology, you need not
become a linguist. You need only understand the concept of accurate
word usage, to then understand the next concept of effective questioning
to resolve contradictions in expressions. You may even create
new words, if each participant verifiably recognizes the concept
referenced, achieved by asking questions.

Flaw: an often hidden defect that may cause failure under stress,
a faulty part, a weakness in something immaterial, a fault that
may nullify what it holds.

Flawless: without flaw.

Mystery: Something not understood or beyond understanding.

There are no ultimate mysteries where the human mind is available.
There is only a current lack of data or lack of effort to question
the data, by definition. Each can be resolved with time and effort.
A mystery is merely a point of time before the related knowledge
is discovered.

By thus identifying the parameters of words, one may arrange
words, held to their substance, to find their way past obstacles
blocking those who do not question their conclusions.

The more words for which you have the patience to endure, and
use the resulting knowledge for your own mind's reaction, before
you act, the greater the goal you can achieve if you are learning
how to achieve the goal by words. Your mind learns by words, before
or after you proverbially touch your finger to the flame.

How much time will you use for the mistakes of actions, before
you use much less total time to more efficiently think your way
to the process for achieving any goal by the least actions? How
much time have your predecessors used attempting actions to achieve
the goal that still eludes you?

Explain and define your mind's way all the way to the goal,
before you get up from your desk or conference room chair. Words
are that efficient, if you arrange them as questions to cause
your mind to search for the relationships.

It is perspective to note that a wise military general can
immediately win any war by first devising an adequate war plan
and then announcing the plan to the public, including the enemy,
period. The pen is mightier than the sword. There has never been
a wise military general in human history. Every military general
started shooting before he finished sufficient thinking.

Scientific process...

The process to learn intellectual technology is merely the
process of scientific analysis, applied to a uniquely diverse
array of variables, some of which are rarely considered by such
process, to include the controlling contradiction of scientific
process. Concurrently, the extent of the involved reasoning is
secondary to its perfection. Science is elsewhere held to lesser
standards. Therein the result is certain, and requires only patience
for questioning.

Your own mind is everything...

The contradictions one seeks to resolve are those within one's
own mind. The other guy's expressed contradictions are not relevant
to devising a sustainable solution to your concerns. If the other
guy's words or actions identify genuine contradictions, they only
identify his problem which he must resolve if he expects to achieve
a related goal. If he is an opponent, leave him with his contradictions,
because they will more quickly defeat him after you introduce
the solution for which you resolved ALL the contradictions.

Reaction to categories of knowledge...

(From the Introduction page - Excerpt: Related Concepts:) A
human mind functioning under the precepts of individual curiosity,
unfettered by institutional preconceptions, may or may not be
interested in this material, and if interested may derive benefit
from investigation. In contrast, a mind functioning under the
precepts of institutional concepts will consistently react against
this material, and against the expression in this paragraph, thus
avoiding serious investigation and any benefit. The reaction is
explainable and intriguing. This material constitutes an identifiable
category of knowledge. The phenomenon of the differential reactions
creates the inordinate value of this block of knowledge because
it is designed for the utility of institutional leaders who react
as described and thus do not investigate it. That the material
is not redesigned to mitigate the verifiably adverse initial reaction
of the persons for whom it is designed, secures its value, and
is the only known avenue to such inordinate utility as described
below. It is only the uniquely perceptive institutional leaders
or their staff who will therefore gain access to said value, as
their own choice unrelated to the results of another person utilizing
the technology. The phenomenon in part explains why persons in
institutional positions consistently create the contradictions
they perceive as logical while the general public just shakes
their head in amazement over such obvious illogicality. That most
of the general public, inherently including the aforementioned
institutional leaders, commonly create their own examples of illogicality
within countless conceptual institutions, without their mind recognizing
the alteration of positions and thus perceptions, again illuminates
the value of this material.

You are the other guy's other guy...

You are the other guy's other guy, to 6.1 billion other guys.
So who is wrong, you or the other guy? Fail to answer the question,
and you cannot start the process to successfully resolve a contradiction.
Again, who is the other guy? Because the trap of the initial question
inherently applies and has no escape, and proves the current inability
to effectively reason, by anyone attempting to answer it in either
referenced case, the accurate answer is outside the question,
but understandable only after the question is answered. If you
think the other guy is wrong, you are more certainly wrong, by
definition. You are each wrong. The contradiction of your concern
is a concept independent of those humans who represent it or its
parts. The contradiction itself is wrong, by its existence. It
is merely not accurately identified by the squabbling humans who
carelessly put themselves into the position of representing a
conceptual error, usually ill defined with sloppily used words.
The participants blamed the problem on the other guy, rather than
the accurately referenced existence of the contradiction separate
from its human representatives.

If you perceive that the other guy is part of an institution,
and you are surrounded by like-minded people in your institution,
thus you are not alone in your perceptions; then start questioning
the other guys in your own institution, until you discover the
many differences in perceptions that expose the flaw in your belief
that your colleagues are like-minded. If you think those peripheral
differences are immaterial to your primary objectives, ask more
questions to discover the functional results of those differences,
where they inherently lead.

One of the more common phenomena in politically involved organizations
is their, vote-for, lists being used as, vote-against, lists by
X% of the members who are in the organization, for any of several
reasons not reflected by the leadership's political choices. The
contradiction is obvious. It therefore holds a resolution obviously
identifying another contradiction, which need only be questioned
to its controlling contradiction to then be resolved to your satisfaction.

The above, and other data such as people commonly switching
sides on a political issue as they learn different knowledge,
identify contradictions and their resolutions predicated on concepts
rather than people. It is not the people. It is the concepts.
The people are not your enemies. Like yourself, they simply failed
to adequately question the concepts to thus devise that which
will prevail regardless of the initial perceptions of the people
who will, because that which you devise will prevail against their
every question, recognize the accuracy of your conclusion.

Start right and you can end right...

If you do not start right, you cannot end right. If you start
wrong, that is, with a contradiction left in place at the outset,
all your efforts are futile until you start over again and resolve
the first contradiction, then each successive contradiction, especially
the ones you thought insignificant.

Use the words that define the concept...

He who attempts to fool the other guy with words, hears himself
more often, and first fools his own mind, or his subsequent words
will not ring true for the actions behind them, and thus not fool
the other guy. The successful charlatans in institutional leadership
positions sincerely believe themselves despite the objectively
recognized display of their contradictions, and the manifest proof
in the failure of their efforts when compared to their words.

If you use words that do not reference the concept you wish
to express, you will fail in your subsequent efforts. You train
your mind by the words you use, and the smallest flaw left in
place will defeat every subsequent effort, by design of the human
mind. The human mind cannot create a useful receptor for a contradiction,
because the mind is designed to resolve and thus eliminate contradictions
from attempted memory receptors. There can be no prevailing human
action that contradicts the mind's design.

There is, however, within the design, a singular process, with
a brilliant disguise, for a mind to acquire and retain a set of
contradictions that the mind defines as uncontradicted despite
the readily available data to the contrary. The mind evades any
recognition process for those contradictions, or more accurately
stated, it can no longer recognize them as contradictions because
there is no available neural connection or synaptic exchange between
the related data and its logical conclusion. The concept can be
usefully described as an alteration of perceptions in the mind,
induced by an identifiable concept involving a physical process
in the human brain. But the alteration is always vulnerable to
correction, by the mind's original design, and thus to exist,
holds a brilliantly designed disguise and defense costing the
so-altered mind its ability to otherwise advance in vast arenas
of knowledge.

An analogy may assist in this regard. The following is among
that which the referenced persons disdain, but only therefore
deny themselves the valuable and useful concept it illuminates.
A classic case for instruction is the institutionally taught assumption
that US Congressmen, judges and other government chaps with high
titles must be referenced as: "Your Honor", or "The
Honorable". Keep in mind throughout that these fine people
hold the same design of a mind as you, I and everyone. There is
a flawless explanation for the contradiction you perceive. The
test of time has proven that there is not a shred of honor among
those highly titled chaps, by accurate definition of the word,
honor, and the actions of those title holders as such. Everyone
except institutionally titled chaps recognizes that fact. Even
many institutional chaps recognize that fact when they reference
the other guy's otherwise identical institutions. But the mind
of the Honorable Senator Anonymous genuinely and sincerely believes
that he is honorable. If it were otherwise, he would not be able
to sustain his successful image of sincerity. If I were a US Senator,
Congressman or court judge, I would verifiably not hold a shred
of honor, by definition of the word and its verifiable void of
substance in the institution, but I would sincerely believe otherwise,
or I would not be said title holder. The contradiction would remain
in my mind, intensely defended by a specific phenomenon of the
mind. The utility of this verifiable knowledge, involving the
accurate use of words, to both the Senator and his critic, is
of inordinate value.

Whether the Senator is honorable or not, is of no concern after
identifying the involved concept. Let him believe his comfortable
illusion. At issue is the priceless utility of your mind, especially
if you the reader, are that Senator or court judge. If you sloppily
use the word, honorable, routinely applying it as a title of a
person regardless of the actions of the title holders individually
or as an institution, when the holders look to their title and
its attributes instead of the actions carried out with the title,
what will you be training your mind to do with other words, and
what subtle but critical meanings will you therefore not recognize
in a maze of data you might use for any particular decision? What
is the result of any flaw left in place? Train your mind to recognize
flawless concepts, to thus derive their utility for resolving
complex contradictions. Therein, use the words that reference
the concept you wish to describe. If the Senator is dishonorable,
he has nothing to offer any honorable person because he represents
a contradiction left in place. Reference him by his name. If you
must describe his nature, reference him as a person who is ignorant
of his contradictions, or as a dolt, and reference every spade
as a spade, for the vastly greater value of flawless reasoning
to your mind, for the resolution of contradictions that otherwise
frustrate you. The value of your accurately using your mind is
vastly beyond any other concept. If you sell that value to be
nice, or respectful, or for anything else creating a contradiction,
do not expect to ever achieve the value of your mind, the most
valuable commodity known to humans.

Nothing based on dishonesty, a contradiction, is sustainable.
An ignorant person will utilize known dishonesty. An ignorant
person will also commonly not recognize dishonesty, for inability
to ask the questions that will reveal it, for laziness or impatience
with asking questions. But if you consistently and openly define
the word, Senator, as an ignorant person, for his obvious displays
of verifiable dishonesty, without exception, so as to not flaw
your own thinking process, you may therefore also reference the
chap as a Senator. There is no value in the world sufficient to
introduce a contradiction to your mind of otherwise astonishing
value. If you leave any contradiction in place, either willfully
or for laziness in questioning and resolving contradictions in
your mind, then you are that which provides the humor for the
observers of humans.

If you are a Senator, and your colleagues and predecessors
have obviously destroyed any honor that the title might have ever
held, from the days of Rome to the day you are reading this, in
your conversation, request that you be referenced by your name,
as a common person, and apologize for being associated with the
title. At issue is not the title or your ego. At issue is your
training your mind to recognize the obscure, controlling contradictions
that are frustrating your current efforts. You can have the knowledge
to resolve complex contradictions, or have the ego-gratification
of your title, but not both, because the title instills a controlling
contradiction in your mind.

That claim is of no value until you learn the knowledge to
verify it. You are human. You must train your mind. It is not
genetically imprinted to discover the correct avenue through a
maze of contradicting variables. The value of a petty title is
zip compared to the value of the knowledge to resolve complex
contradictions. If you are the Senator or other institutionally
titled person, imagine the laughter of the common person, that
which you were before your were given your title, who recognizes
your difficulty with these paragraphs, while his mind sees in
them no contradiction or difficulty. Utilize his knowledge.

The difficulty of conveying this concept to any institutionally
titled person, caught amid the scrutiny of his institutional colleagues
equally dependent upon their institutional illusion, indicates
why intellectual technology is so rare. The proliferation of institutions,
organizations and government encompassing all people is only part
of the explanation. The common citizen, with no difficulty in
ill-referencing the Senator, who is often quick to reference the
titled Senator as a dishonest swine, with apology for thus slighting
the good character of farmyard pigs by comparing them to Senators,
holds no advantage in his humorous or sincere description of the
other guy, because his own contradiction is of the identical nature
found in an arena defined by different words not of his comfort.
If using words to accurately identify only the other guy were
of utility, why would problems remain? What is the corollary concept
for those with no titles? It exists. The controlling contradiction
blocking the avenue to your goals, is in your own mind, not that
of the other guy.

Therefore recognize the utility of the section herein referencing
humor. Without that imperative part of the puzzle, the Senator,
citizen and every other human perceiving the other guy as their
opponent, cannot access the discussion of their own embarrassing
displays of abject stupidity by accurate use of the reference
(contradictions or ignorance expressed after incentive to resolve
them was manifest). Only thereafter may they correct their contradictions,
much to their robust laughter, to therefore promptly achieve their
goals.

If you think senators, judges, national presidents, military
generals and such chaps are caught in a contradiction with their
title, and they are, pity the poor sad chaps in think tanks, which
they sometimes reference as research institutes. They trapped
themselves on a rhetorical pedestal above all the other titles.
How does their mind accommodate the manifested fact that they
cannot even think past the contradiction of their ludicrous attempt
to think for other inherently equal human minds, while having
not solved the problems for which their thinking was purchased?
They institutionally elevated cheap advice to fraud by accepting
money for what they should have been able to think enough to recognize
would fail, as proven by their ongoing results. Was not the Roman
Senate a think tank, thus proving the history of think tanks no
more successful than Senators? And they still take themselves
seriously, while people who think, openly laugh at the glaring
failure and fraud of think tanks. These words accurately describe
the phenomenon. The think tank expert who cannot recognize the
accurately identified concept, and laugh, will fail his illusion
the rest of his life.

Use words accurately, without fear or false propriety. You
train your mind by the words you use. Accurately used words, without
need to defend illusions, open avenues of useful reasoning closed
to those who must defend the rhetorical illusion of their titles,
credentials, institutions and such concepts.

Counter productive process...

If you attempt to force a person to do something, such as with
the force of police-backed law, which is logical for your knowledge-base
but illogical for his knowledge-base, will the resulting threat
of jail provide his mind with the knowledge that your original
conclusion is correct and his is incorrect, or will his mind begin
the process to resolve the separate contradiction you created
by using force, thus stagnating your efforts to a progressively
more costly defense system while his mind, under greater incentive,
inherently devises progressively more effective counter-measures
within the process of force to which you lent your process knowledge
and credibility? Utilize your answer as a tool of knowledge.

In contrast, your additional thought process at the origin,
simply asking the series of questions starting at your last conclusion,
to devise the process which causes his mind to categorically recognize
the benefit of your conclusion, would achieve your goal and make
your resources available for your next greater advancements, rather
than for a stagnating defense. One need only learn how to efficiently
organize mental complexities beyond the currently common conclusions
relying on the ultimately counter productive use of force. It
is only an aside, as just one common data point in your process,
to note that your perceived opponent in this regard holds no incentive
to patiently listen to your reasoning, or understand it. You will
therefore resolve the contradictions related to that data point,
removing any need for him to do so, and still achieve your goal
by designing his incentive to promptly recognize the value of
the goal, and the value of then discovering the reasoning.

Concurrently, the use of force or deception creates an expanded
institution whose existence is predicated on force or deception,
inherently growing under institutional precepts, to compound the
resulting problems, requiring additional thought and resources
for a therefore progressively more eluding goal, when more effective
original thought would have prevented the latter. Those who perceive
a personal dependence on the existence of an illogically expanded
and progressively failing institution, simply do not yet recognize
the available technology to expand their ability, valuable for
the same or related institutions therefore advancing to valuable
goals. Intellectual technology provides that ability, enhancing
rather than threatening the opportunities for institutional personnel.

Questions...

The mind uses questions and answers to learn new knowledge.
The key is in the questions. They must be your mind's questions
consistently held to your mind's fundamental reasoning process
for controlling-contradictions. Therein one must acquire the knowledge
of controlling-contradiction questions themselves, which finds
useful identity in any particular mind only by certain of that
mind's questions.

The above is in part why books and most commercial conveyance
of knowledge fail, as proven by the existence of human-caused
contradictions after all the lessons were repetitiously manifest,
the experts acquired all the titles, credentials and positions
of prestige or power, written all the books, taught all the university
classes, given all the speeches, answered all the institutionalized
news media questions, talked on all the talk shows, held all the
conferences, workshops, sessions of congresses, board and executive
meetings, sold all their marketing-based seminars, and got elected
again. If what they said were true, why do the problems and unachieved
goals remain? The question has a definitive answer, indicated
in the above. The test of time proves the failure of their ongoing
words and process. The experts and leaders erroneously assumed
that the words transferred to them created accurate concepts in
their own thinking process, and then assumed the same for the
other mind's thinking process. For lack of intensely questioning
that concept itself to resolve its controlling contradiction,
they remained ignorant of the type questioning process or resulting
process that could efficiently transfer the concept-utility with
or despite the offered word arrangements.

The drug analogy...

It is common knowledge that many recreational and medically
used drugs act to alter the perceptions of the mind, by way of
altering electro-chemical functions in the brain. One such commonly
understood drug is adrenaline, produced by the body. It was discovered
that the brain produces several chemicals similar to those mind-altering
drugs otherwise socially frowned-upon because they noticeably
alter perceptions. The alterations of the perceptions are readily
verifiable. The verified existence of the concept, with no further
proof in its mechanism for this discussion, is adequate as an
analogy to recognize the possibility of a mechanism blocking or
obscuring one's own recognition of a process flaw in one's efforts
to achieve a goal or resolve a contradiction.

Why does your opponent not recognize the obvious logic of your
statements? Why? Did you actually answer the question with a process-useful,
verifiable answer? The response that the idiot is obviously an
idiot to not recognize something so apparent and universally verified
in your logic, that is, the response he offers about your reaction
to his great words of wisdom, is not useful for anything but a
humor-based rhetorical exclamation mark attached to your related
reasoning. The related reasoning is the useful tool. Within the
reasoning, the other guy can be an idiot or a genius, and you
will be utilizing logic related to his mind's pattern of actions
rather than their indeterminable source stimuli.

Nor is it useful as a conclusion to suggest that the chap is
on drugs, either recreational, medical or naturally produced by
the brain. If, for example, the chap is permanently on drugs which
alter his perceptions, voluntarily or by process of human chemistry
induced by some stimulus, your option within the process of reasoning
is to devise the process that prevails with the perceived mind-alteration
as a permanent factor. One simply adds that data to the questioning
process, not in relation to the inaccurate assumption of drug
influence, but in relation to the manifested pattern of data recognition
in his mind.

That the phenomenon could exist in his mind, due to body chemistry
beyond current human control, suggests its possibility of being
at play in your own mind. You cannot control most chemical production
in your brain, and we humans are far from recognizing which of
countless momentary, recurrent or institutionally entrenched stimuli
produce what chemical reaction where in the body. We can, however,
recognize patterns of institutional reactions or perceptions,
and with sufficient, effective questioning within our own reasoning
process, perhaps with the very same reactions and perceptions
at play in our own mind, devise the functional resolutions of
contradictions in a trail of such that produces our desired effect
from the results of all those perceptions. It is the nature of
the questions that can identify the reasoning process of such
effectiveness that it transcends all the variables.

Two access processes...

One can learn the related knowledge by one's own choice, or
by the choice of another person. The processes are different,
and require the person making the choice to know both processes.
If you wish to achieve a goal or solve a problem, you must set
out to learn knowledge of the related process. Otherwise you must
wait for the choice of another person. Because the knowledge is
rare, your wait will likely not be rewarded. The other person
will more likely also not learn how to solve your problem. Concurrently,
the person who learns the knowledge will most likely recognize
that your problems or goals, no matter how profound in your perception,
are not worth the use of such valuable knowledge. If you learn
the knowledge, you can promptly resolve that portion of your opponent's
actions which otherwise damage you, and leave him to what he therefore
learns.

The history of humans is that of the foolish belief that the
other guy, such as government and other institution leaders, will
learn the knowledge and solve the problems as their leadership
duty. The government and other institution leaders are the last
people who will ever learn the related knowledge, and the first
people to cause most of the problems, by design of institutional
concepts. Set out to learn intellectual technology, or otherwise
enjoy the common problems inherently perpetuated by those acting
without adequate knowledge of their actions.

Institutional Thinking...

An institution herein referenced is any group of two or more
people identifying their individual minds as a single mind with
a single reference-name, and often a defined, singular purpose.
They speak and act as "we", when their individual craniums
hold only one mind each, separate, creating an ongoing contradiction
in their words and actions, that is, a flaw, by definition, left
in place to inherently flaw subsequent conclusions. They therefore
identify a related thought pattern, or the institution would not
exist. Organizations and governments are common references for
institutions, among others. Any two or more people with a single
reference is an institution upon reference.

The same set of words identifying one concept to a grocery
shopper easily identifies a different concept to the grocery store
owner, and a time interval can create the owner from the shopper,
thus creating a third institutionally identified perception from
the same words. Because individual minds each transcend many institutions,
the institutional leader speaking to even the institution's members,
yet alone those outside his institution, routinely creates more
contradictions than he resolves when speaking from his institutional
context. A mind will not accurately think within more than one
identified institutional thought pattern at any one time. Spoken
or written concepts within one institutional thought pattern create
many more contradictions than those solved, when communicating
with a person thinking in a different institutional thought pattern.
Concurrently, varied word arrangements create yet different institutional
thought pattern in another mind, without the speaker or writer
being aware of the change. The conceptual contradiction in sum
is obvious, and the source of many additional contradictions.
The resolution is achieved by a particular series of questions
relating to controlling concepts. Knowing that you cannot accurately
convey your reasoning with your choice of words, without a detailed
exchange of questions between yourself and another individual,
your logic-based choice is to devise a different process for achieving
the goal you hoped to achieve with your institutional choice of
words. That different process exists.

The difficulty that an institutional thinker has, is with devising
the more effective process impartial to the institution's impact
on his own thought process. He inherently perceives the institution
as something greater than the individual mind, or he would have
not joined the institution. To suggest that the institutional
benefits are peripheral in relation to any alteration of perceptions,
is to poorly use the word, peripheral, or its substitutes. The
benefits are not peripheral. They are central. The institution
is variously the source of his institutional position, authority,
image, status, income, credentials, access to other institutional
minds in the same trap, and more. Without the institution, he
perceives his mind as unable to achieve goals related to that
institution. Extensive dependence is defined, inherently extracting
a price, and then quickly escalates the contradictions. He therefore
defends his institution above question, to defend his titled image
and illusion of superior thinking or power. The first question
one does not answer, such as a question of one's institution,
is a controlling contradiction for the subsequent process.

A man is just a man, until he talks about men, and therein
becomes more in his mind, especially if a perceived opponent is
referenced, such as women. Therein he becomes yet more in his
mind, forgetting that he is just another human among 6.1 billion
and soon to be worm food. In contrast, if he fully recognizes
from the outset that he is worm food, there is nothing to alter
his perceptions between the existing data and the resolution to
an identified problem. The person fully knowing he is isolated
without asset beyond his own mind, misses no data in a reasoning
process. The person with a title, starts thinking at his institutional
illusion, missing the imperative data between said isolation and
the perceptions of his title or institutional reference. You are
just human, with the same off-the-shelf brain everyone else was
issued, like the other guy holding the data you need. No human-created
illusion can change that. So do not attempt the change. The brain
and its data-analysis process are the only real tools one holds.
Use the original data to create unflawed knowledge, while the
other guy is impressed with his intellectually useless institutional
title. But it is not that easy. After you read this, think more
carefully about how your mind reacts to the reference of each
institution of your inherent or voluntary membership.

The process of learning is that of asking and answering questions.
To learn new knowledge, there can be no concept successfully held
above question by the human mind, by design, especially for goals
not prior achieved. The singular, consistently verifiable reasoning-trail
must start at a flawless position, usually back at the definition
of the human concept. Those questions which seem to question one's
own institution are those not asked by the institutional thinker,
and routinely contain the data explaining why the institution
and its personnel are failing. The concept may be described as
a disguise, since the questions that seem to initially most threaten
the institution, most strengthen it if asked and accurately answered.

The use of any institution or its reference compounds the contradictions
otherwise common to any thought process, and then entrenches them
rather than ever resolving them. Therein, a primary portion of
utilizing intellectual technology is the identification of the
organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, to thus correct
their contradictory results.

The zenith of reasoning capability is a single human mind,
whose ability for any block of knowledge is advanced by training.
It is impossible to increase human intelligence by creating an
organization and adding members. If it were otherwise, the Chinese
government would be the most intelligent organization on the rock,
having solved all the problems, or more than other societies.
In fact, the moment the second mind is added to the organization,
the inherent contradictions diminish each participant's ability
to reason through contradictions, that is, until they learn intellectual
technology.

Controlling Concepts...

In any series of concepts, a controlling relationship can be
identified upon sufficient questioning. Contradictions are usually
not resolved because a popular resolution to a more dramatic or
obvious portion of the contradiction, contradicts a less noticeable
concept controlling the former. Spending unnoticed dollars to
save the dimes in sight is a concept applicable to concepts. Upon
learning effective questioning process, the controlling contradiction
of any institution is quickly identified. The same process promptly
resolves the contradiction, and thus the subordinate contradictions
in exponentially efficient groups. For lack of the knowledge of
effective questioning process, the institution leaders literally
cannot recognize their controlling contradiction, or they would
have done so and promptly resolved it to promptly achieve their
espousals.

The Human Mind's Design...

It is inherent that the human mind is of a design. The mind
invented the words and their definitions to create such useful
concepts. The design limits that which is available to the mind.
For example, the mind is a reasoning device, not a muscle. Therefore
some things are available to the mind, and some are not, by design.
Yet the design includes the useful concept of attempting to use
the mind for that which is not available to it, to thus identify
its design limits. Part of the intellectual technology puzzle
is that of learning the exact design parameters of the human mind,
by process of unique questions. To achieve complex goals or resolve
complex contradictions currently beyond common achievement inherently
because adequate or effective thinking-time has not yet been applied
to them, one must use their available time within the human mind's
design, rather than waste that time with futile pursuits outside
the mind's design.

Of course one must first learn that design and its precise
limits. The time therefore spent to learn the mind's functional
design is imperative. It is somewhat obvious that institutional
thinkers with impressive credentials, who do not know how to question
their own conclusions, and especially those of their institution,
also do not know the design parameters of the human mind. One
need only observe their own unresolved problems, or the more embarrassing
of their statements throughout history. What was so often, too
soon said by great institutional leaders, about the shape of the
earth, the ability of humans to fly, walking on the moon, every
other person's race, religion and perceptions, the results of
the other political group prevailing, the home use of computers,
and every other expressed conclusion subsequently proven by time
to be amusingly illogical? The leaders did not question their
conclusions. They did not know when they were inside or outside
the mind's design for functional achievements. They thought the
possible to be impossible, and the impossible to be possible.
They used their time to espouse conclusions which proved their
foolishness, rather than learn the mind's design parameters to
thus know what could be achieved, and what could not. And only
because they held mutually conferred titles, foolish people believed
them. First identify the human mind's controlling parameters.
Use that knowledge.

Those who fail to stop what they are doing, and first learn
the seemingly complex data-block of intellectual technology, by
any means or from any source, will for the rest of their lives
randomly attempt to achieve goals or use processes that are not
available to the human mind, and concurrently remain ignorant
of goals and inordinately effective processes readily available
to humans.

Your mind's controlling contradiction...

Intellectual technology is the knowledge you are seeking more
than any other knowledge, that for which you will spend your entire
life pursuing, with very little chance of learning, because it
is disguised within the knowledge your mind fears far more than
death itself. It is the knowledge of your own mind's controlling
contradiction, that which your mind does not allow you to even
approach under common circumstances. If you are so very fortunate
to learn it, you will laugh robustly over your having feared it.
You will laugh the laughter sought by all people, knowing what
simple disguise stops so many people from learning how to achieve
the seemingly impossible. It is only knowledge. It cannot hurt
you.

For Those Not In A Position To Utilize Alaska Intech Services...

There is no currently known, efficient way to learn the referenced
knowledge outside a particularly rare type of questioning process.
If there were, it would have most likely been discovered, and
all the social problems would have been resolved. The referenced
knowledge can be learned the hard way, but it takes a lifetime,
if one is fortunate and asks enough questions to irritate or deeply
anger their every acquaintance. Start today. If you have an unanswered
question of a concept, break it down to many smaller questions,
write them, write the answers, question the answers, repeat that
process to exhaustion and combine the answers for which there
are no unanswered questions. At each contradiction created by
your current answer and its lack of common manifestation, ask
more than your first question creating your first excuse as an
answer. Break the question down to smaller parts again. Ignore
most of what you have been taught as conclusions, especially by
persons with titles or institutional authority. Seek the statements
of reasoning, not the conclusions, and consider them in relation
to the human design itself, not institutional illusions. Be tenacious,
and do not stop questioning your conclusions. Watch closely to
identify the commonalties of concepts and institutions perceived
as opposing each other. Spend your time writing rather than reading
the words of others. Find the contradictions in what you wrote.
Seek out diversity of knowledge, great diversity. Half the ingredients
for the knowledge you seek will come from that which you initially
find not interesting, or seemingly unrelated to your pursuit.

Circular Reasoning...

Circular reasoning or verbal masturbation is a common description
of reasoning process. A person using that description to discard
the referenced concepts identifies himself as not knowledgeable
of questioning his way out of a perceived contradiction or confusion.
He does not understand the meaning of the words, circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is a useful term describing a highly useful
process. Upon completion of circular reasoning, the person expressing
it recognizes the original concept and each arrangement of words
or sub-concepts comprising the circle, connecting its each element,
arriving back at the original concept, sometimes identified by
a slightly different arrangement of words, as a verification of
the unbroken reasoning trail. The value of those different arrangements
of words in the circle is in the inherently different knowledge
they create among perceptive minds. Two differing sets of words
describing the same concept will identify two different parameters
of knowledge, more so in two different minds. If that were not
so, why would the other words or their arrangements have been
invented? The two different sets of words hastily perceived as
identifying the same conclusion will also create new knowledge
in an individual mind sufficiently perceptive to add new knowledge
from new arrangements of words, rather than deny their mind the
knowledge just because the words are sloppily perceived as similar.
The controlling contradiction separating you from your goal or
problem resolution is inherently in your own mind, and need only
be identified by a slightly different arrangement of words connecting
two data points you did not prior connect. Circular reasoning
or any exercise of reasoning process rearranging words to identify
new perceptions on a concurrently verified reasoning-trail constitutes
an efficient search for those data points. Therein questions will
verify the connections.

The whole and the parts...

To most efficiently sustain our bodies and advance our diverse
interests in material concerns, we humans have developed division
of labor. I need not know how to program this computer to adequately
use it for my interests, nor do I need to know how to grow rice
for supper, since it grows poorly in Alaska. I need only learn
the parts of the puzzle that sustain my interests, including what
I trade for the rice and the process to bring this web page to
you. There are enough people to learn and fulfill the other parts
of human advancement.

As another example of the above concept, we humans have identified
an interesting difference between the male and female brains.
They seem to have a slightly different neuron structure joining
the two halves of the brain, and obviously display different thought
patterns, as so commonly discussed since the first day males and
females started conversation. It is an aside to note that female
brains seem to recognize whole concepts more efficiently that
male brains, while male brains recognize details more efficiently
that female brains. Besides the greater arena of commonalties,
they thus serve different parts of the puzzle in whole, referenced
as the human phenomenon.

Therein we identify the whole puzzle and its parts. They are
two separate concepts, by definition. You may understand the whole,
and not the parts, or understand the parts, and not the whole,
or any portions of each. Neither has the advantage without the
other. For an example, at the first glitch, my computer can become
worthless without knowledge of how to fix the particular glitch.
My knowledge of using it can be useless without the knowledge
to fix it.

But the benefits of division of labor or cooperation in social
process are of no value for intellectual technology, and in fact
hinder access to learning it. The rarity of its manifestation
is in the imperative of the single mind to know the entirety,
and its parts, and their synthesis, for the sliver of knowledge
described as intellectual technology. It is just a small block
of knowledge, but is can be used to promptly achieve that which
has frustrated humans since day one. If cooperation in social
process fails to function, the resolution cannot be with cooperation
in social process, by definition. A new data point or block of
knowledge must be added. Notice with amusement, upon manifestation
of discord, the number of times that institutional leaders, from
small local clubs to large nations, cry out and plead for, "unity,
unity, unity, unity", when there is no unity. There is no
unity for a reason that cannot be resolved by the cry for unity.
The resolution of the discord is found in the knowledge not held
by leaders, that which simply incorporates knowledge of the part
of the puzzle not learned by the leaders because they are spending
their time crying for unity or devising yet another war, another
organization, another institutional plan, or such use of force,
power, and institutional thinking that only creates the next contradiction.

The utility of intellectual technology is manifested upon learning
both the parts of the human phenomenon puzzle, and its whole,
and their synthesis, as concepts. One becomes the master of the
knowledge of the human mind's design, not master of the design,
just the knowledge. That is asking much, but not with an efficient
set of questions exponentially eliminating sets of contradictions
to compare unflawed parts with what is then an unflawed whole.

International Utility...

Intellectual technology is predicated on the functioning design
of the human mind, the organizational manifestations of human
fundamentals, and such concepts universal to the human phenomenon.
Its utility knows no institutional boundary among humans. A nation,
country or government is just an identified institution. Intellectual
technology is applicable to solve problems or achieve goals in
every nation or between them.

Because the exact meanings of words, and thus flawless expression
of concepts, is an imperative part of conveying the knowledge,
although not as imperative for effecting most results, any language
obstacle only requires additional patience and a team of high
quality interpreters. Because patience for a questioning process
is an original requirement, the additional patience for translations
and concept verifications is only a matter of time rather than
that of training the mind.

It is an aside to mention a related example, obviously near
an end of the spectrum, that is little understood and upsets many
readers when suggested in this manner. World peace is readily
achievable and efficiently effected using intellectual technology,
and would most benefit those who most fear it. It is a further
aside to note that the conclusion of formulating that extensive
process was somewhat memorable at the hour, day and year it occurred.
The example sounds somewhat grand or dramatic, but is not so when
applied to the process of intellectual technology. The process
to flawlessly resolve each individual contradiction in a process
is not effected by the total number of the contradictions, or
their diversity or magnitude. Each contradiction is resolved in
the same manner using the same original process-knowledge. The
largest or most complex problem is solved the same way as the
smallest or simplest problem. The most difficult part is identifying
the most obscure, original contradictions amusingly easy to resolve
by any mind. After learning those, the concluding portion of the
world peace puzzle is just boring process.

Of course peace between any two militarily bickering nations
is more readily achieved, among lesser goals. Even the military
generals raised in the cocoon of a war mentality and enamored
with its art, would find intellectual technology of infinitely
greater intrigue and reward. Running off to war was an imperative
part of learning the knowledge the hard way. But it was only a
small part among many. Those who construct their life on any one
part therefore simply never recognize the diverse, other parts.

Either Side, Or Both...

Consider all the human hours, years and centuries consumed
by humans attempting to resolve their manifested differences.
Consider the processes. Objectively, the battle fields of wars
are little different from the voting booths, negotiating tables
or debate forums of opposing parties. Two parties represented
by institutions which perceive each other as opponents attempt
to advance their institutional perceptions over those of the other,
then settle for the inherently contradicted result of the process,
then individually begin the process to compound the remaining
contradictions until they escalate to the next resolution process,
and so forth, while the human phenomenon is stagnated by the human
hours consumed in that self-defeating process. If that institutional
technology were successful, there would be no more manifested
differences. The smallest flaw left in place inherently grows
to equal or exceed the flaws prior resolved. The test of time
has been ample. Any successful process therein would become known
as the solution and would be applied at the least contradiction
to solve it within minutes to release the otherwise wasted time
for greater achievements. That technology has obviously failed,
and because the human mind was designed to resolve identified
contradictions, the next more advanced technology was inherently
existent to efficiently resolve all differences to thus exponentially
advance the human phenomenon.

Verifiable after the test of time, the concluding technology
for resolving contradictions created by the human phenomenon will
be referenced as intellectual technology and defined by that which
is herein discussed. That is not just a suggestion of the next
technology, but the concluding technology, until the original
design of the human mind is changed by a particular other concept,
for an intriguing new process.

Intellectual technology is predicated on the design of the
human mind. It does not require the opposing institution to initially
be involved. Only one institution (or one individual if there
is sufficient incentive) need create the resolution to the contradiction
that therefore no human mind can escape. The controlling mechanism
is the intellect, that is, the mind and its process. Within this
technology one is not out-smarting the opponent as such. The opponent
holds a mind of indeterminant variables inherently beyond another
person's control or even understanding. One is instead out-smarting
the identified contradictions, and attaching the flawless resolutions
to concepts within which all human minds conform by design.

While both sides of a perceived institutional contradiction
could use the technology, within therefore easily achieved mutual
agreement, they would therefore have to both learn the technology.
There is little likelihood of both sides deciding to learn a block
of knowledge they both foolishly fear in the first place. One
institution may learn the knowledge and effect the goal or problem
solution, regardless of the other institution's opposition, leaving
the other to learn from the results encompassing them.

Incentive...

Incentive is everything for human action. With it, things happen.
Without it, things do not happen. The more valuable incentive
becomes obvious if one questions their way past initial perceptions.
All those institution leaders face the same vulnerabilities as
all humans. Were the time available to their purported great minds,
free from bickering with other institutions, they could find the
cure for cancer and other causes of death they and their family
face, or work at something more valuable to fund the efforts of
their interest. The greatest threat to the life of the military
generals, their families and the government officials dumping
money into war machines and other self-perpetuating contradictions,
is cancer and the other common causes of death, not war. That
percentage of human time spent outside the concept of reasoning,
attempting the concept of force, is counter productive to the
great benefits that reasoning provides humans. So how did minds
perceive incentives subordinate to priority concerns of the same
minds?

Cancer is just an example. Select any examples subordinate
to your primary interests. You will be most damaged by that for
which you did not most prepare.

But that concept is not sufficient incentive to cause those
military generals and government officials to fund medical research
rather than war. They will let their children die of diseases
otherwise curable, while they fund war machines, only as an example
identical to the medical research institutions spending time supporting
the political parties diverting funds into bureaucratic ozone
holes in the name of medical research and national defense, because
they are each simply ignorant of the utility of the reasoning
process to more efficiently achieve the goal of their military,
medical or political efforts. To promptly resolve their human-caused
contradictions is to leave more time and resources available for
the advanced knowledge that can leave them living 100 years as
biological teenagers having fun before they start growing old,
in a society without need to fear war or other institutionally
created problems.

War is just an example. For those so enamored with war that
it constitutes their love of life, intellectual technology will
serve their love well. Was the controlling concept of war to kill
the other guy, or defeat his mind?

Until they encounter the incentive to question their conclusions,
humans will illogically vote in majority-rule elections and scamper
off to wars instead of utilizing the reasoning process of the
human mind for its exponential benefits.

What incentives do your actions prove currently control your
mind? Question them. Identify the incentives that will lead your
mind to precisely where you want it to be, because they will.

Did you want to die of old age having been uselessly fighting
the other guy your entire life, or frustrated by the actions of
the other guy, as those military, police and political chaps,
or did you want to know precisely why humans fight each other,
to the extent of knowing how to resolve every human-caused contradiction,
and therefore laughing the entire time while therefore learning
more useful knowledge? How would you identify the incentive to
learn what you currently do not know?

It Is A Disguise...

If humans create a contradiction, its resolution is inherent
to the creation, since it is a human phenomenon rather than anything
greater. The resolution to which any human would ascribe their
wisdom, including those who create the contradiction, is therefore
readily available within the design of the human mind. So why
do you not recognize it, the actual resolution, not the rhetorical
illusion of suggesting that the fault is with the other guy? The
resolution process is merely disguised, and the disguise defines
the brilliance of the human mind's design. The process is exposed
as is all knowledge, by asking and answering questions, that which
the mind most fears. What concept would create stark fear of a
self-created illusion holding no possible threat or damage?

They Who Most Fear The Knowledge...

One of the greater amusements afforded by learning intellectual
technology is the recognition that those who most crave the related
knowledge, such as governmental and institutional leaders, most
fear it, most evade every avenue to it, and would most benefit
from it if they could escape their fear. Therein the word, fear,
merely represents the description of a concept more usefully understood
in the more complex description of the balance in all things.
There is no logical reason to fear anything, so we invented the
concept to efficiently explain-away a more complexly described
concept.

The worst that can happen is that you die, and you will die
anyway. If you suggest a preference based on time, what is time?
Therefore, if you fear an unknown, learn the unknown or do not
so embarrass yourself by exposing your fear. Consider military
and police personnel who so loudly brag of their bravery, yet
live their life in fear. Why do they carry guns? Your mind is
designed to efficiently learn the unknown. Do so.

The avenue to uniquely difficult goals in the human phenomenon
leads through the greatest images of intellectually fabricated
fear, far greater than fear of mere death. Were it not so, the
goals would have been achieved at the outset, by design of the
human mind's capability. Learning the nature of emotion-based
fear and similar concepts is part of the puzzle.

Why are so many humans so easily convinced to run onto the
battlefields into the face of brutal and agonizing death, or gather
to rail against the other guy in rallies and demonstrations, or
flock to the voting booths to vote against the other guy, each
only creating the next contradiction yet to be resolved; yet so
few humans will spend far less time, money and effort to sit down
at a comfortable setting and methodically work through the questions
that could resolve their every perceived difference? Why? Answer
the question and verify the answer. The answer that can prevail
against the questions you most fear and thus do not ask, is a
part of the puzzle. You need only consider the questions. And
you can do so in a comfortable chair.

Now consider the proof that you are yet among the foolish who
fear to utilize reasoning. Sit down and write a series of questions
and answers starting at any human-caused contradiction you perceive,
moving toward any flaw in your own actions, and notice where you
start encountering difficulty. Notice that is the point where
frustration sets in, a reaction of the mind. Your physical setting
does not change. You are still comfortable, and face no physical
threats or required exertion. But your conclusion will be that
of a requirement to then physically rally an organization of people
to go forward to battle on the battlefields, demonstrate in the
streets, vote in the voting booths, raise money to buy your way
out of your frustration, harangue the crowds, print the posters,
post the web pages, wearily lobby the politicians, tediously hobnob
with so called influential people at their leisure and your work,
write the books, explain your actions as educating the masses
and leaders, and then start over every next morning stagnated
in the quest and then defense of an inherently untenable process,
by design. Why didn't you stay sitting in the comfortable position,
and merely question your way through the contradictions that frustrated
you out of your chair?

If you are human, and thus predicated on your mind, when would
you stop using your mind and start using your muscle? Would it
not be, by definition, at that point where muscle was not needed,
beyond that of lifting your fingers to write the reasoning that
your perceived opponent could not escape in content or format?
That level of reasoning exists, and it is other than what you
currently perceive, separated only by a series of questions easily
endured for a few days, comfortably sitting in your chair. Your
opponent holds the same design of mind as you, and cannot escape
the controlling concept of human reasoning.

Why don't I do it for you...

Asked and challenged by many frustrated people, why I don't
achieve their goals for them if it is so easy; and it is; the
answer is within the related knowledge. There is no interest.
Some people design things. Others build them. I build some things.
I design others. Intellectual technology is a design or puzzle
I was fortunate to discover. I did not design it. I had the time
to discover it because there was nothing I wanted to build with
any part of it while I was learning it. A separate concepts identifies
why I held the tenacity to identify its each part. If I wanted
to use it for something, I would have stopped short in the learning-process,
and be making money attempting to use the first isolated parts
of it to profitably fail that which so many institution leaders
are failing because they stopped learning, too soon, to start
making money among people who are as hasty in their conclusions.

There is no incentive. Because no person can successfully give
something for nothing, I cannot give you something for nothing.
My incentive was to learn knowledge. If your incentive is to achieve
a goal or contradiction-resolution, such as the incentive of being
paid as an institution leader to achieve a sustainable goal, or
the ego-based incentive to be sustainably recognized as a great
person, you need only learn the related knowledge. It is available.

The amusement of these humans is superlative. Because humans
routinely discount the reference to the lives lost and misery
endured in so many wars and battles for all manner of goals still
eluding them, I will mention that trillions of dollars, representing
massive human effort, are being spent on processes that are inherently
self-defeating from the outset. Citizens of nations and members
of organizations are pouring the vast wealth derived from lifetimes
of work, into the pockets of institution leaders who easily flimflam
followers with hollow rhetorical illusions about solutions just
another million dollars away. The same citizens and members openly
attack and ostracize fellow, untitled citizens who suggest non-dramatic
reasoning process to discover and then resolve contradictions
in the process of the leaders.

The masses worship and lavishly pay their leaders, by definition
of the existence of the leaders. It is the leaders who hold the
incentive created by the followers, not the individuals whom the
masses discount. The knowledge is therefore available to the leaders.
That the leaders hold greater fear of knowledge than do individuals,
countering the incentive, is merely part of the puzzle relating
to the aforementioned amusement of great magnitude.

If you are not laughing yourself to tears over these humans,
you are missing the show.

If you are supporting the leaders instead of individually learning
the referenced knowledge, you are the show.

They are the same...

As with other concepts herein expressed, the institutional
leader reading the following will not be pleased. It is inherent
that the concepts which the leader finds unpleasant, are those
which he normally avoids, and thus within which are disguised
the elements of knowledge he needs to acquire, to achieve that
which he has not yet achieved. For an institution leader to achieve
a difficult goal, the discussion of the related concepts must
include the worst of the leader's fears, angers, displeasures,
hatreds and such emotion-based concepts inherently avoided by
design of the human mind. Is that not so?

A difficult but available and useful step in this process,
otherwise impossible in the normal context, is to recognize that
discussion of intellectual technology is and must be between the
leader and a flawlessly impartial entity having no other goal
beyond analysis of flawless logic. This functionally imperative
step, over a conceptual obstacle otherwise insurmountable, cannot
be achieved with an institutional analyst such as a lawyer, think
tank expert, professor, professional staff, expert consultant,
or any such entity identifiable with its own institution. An institution
cannot identify the controlling contradiction of an institution.
An institutional representative will inherently defend the institutional
illusions common between the consultant and the consultee. The
same concept, in another form, occurs between two non-institutional
sorts, such as two common citizens not involved with institutions
of their discussion. No part of the puzzle may be missing from
the process. Intellectual technology involves no approximates.

If, in the course of the related process, a question by the
leader identifies a contradiction within the institutional knowledge
of the expert, said expert's mind will defend the contradiction,
rather than correct it at that moment of identification, or his
institutional position collapses. Do not for a moment be so foolish
as to believe that you would admit an institutional contradiction
of your own institution, upon its identification. Therein the
controlling concept is within the adjective, institutional. A
flaw left in place flaws all conclusions derived from use of the
flaw.

Therein, you may ask me any question or make any comment, and
I will respond with the best logic my mind can devise. If you
can discover a contradiction in my words, and we can verify the
contradiction, the resolution will be easy, and I will be grateful
for your having advanced my knowledge.

The process analyst you seek is the one who can make that above
statement, and then verify its proof upon demand, with certain
questions. There are no such other process analysts in the professional
market, to my knowledge. If you find one, I would welcome the
opportunity for a few questions. Do not bring one forward lightly,
for fear of his embarrassment. If you find one, and he or she
is interested, we will most enjoy some highly advanced discussions,
inherently advancing my knowledge within the narrow sliver of
otherwise boring knowledge represented by intellectual technology.

The above in this section was just a part of the puzzle necessary
for the following concepts which displease organization leaders,
but hold an imperative part of the puzzle for their mind to achieve
difficult goals. Upon such achievement, the following becomes
immaterial.

All the governments, government agencies, organizations, institutions
and their leaders are functionally the same, including those who
most rail against each other and even go to war against each other,
if you step back a couple more steps and look at them.

The leaders place the rhetorical illusion of the organization
above the individual, while the design of humans is such that
the individual mind is above all but its designer. Is that not
evident? Is the mind not separated from the group by physical
location and its individual, unique data-base? What is "the
organization", if not just two words with no functioning
brain attached to it. XYZ Organization does not have a brain attached
to the name. In contrast, the names of actual persons each have
a brain attached to them.

The functional definition of the organization, after all the
bovine scat is espoused, is the leadership clique advancing the
hollow words, "the organization", to feed off the work
of the foolish individuals supporting the organization. The organization
leaders feed the members rhetorical illusions, and the members
feed the leaders hard work and enough money to give the leaders
a comparative life of leisure and ego-candy above that of the
members.

The above is not the case for private enterprise companies
having survived the test of time. Therein the owners and managers
provide product and service process (results of thinking) for
which the customers get precisely that for which they willingly
pay (result of thinking). There is no sustainable illusion involved.
The product or service is openly identifiable beyond mere words,
or as mere words where mere words are knowingly being purchased.
The test of time proves the case, or the case recognizably fails.
The goal or contradiction resolution is identifiable in a verified
manifestation beyond a rhetorical illusion.

Organizational technology is merely a process of trading words
for money, with no other achieved goal. Look closer at the process.
Every achieved goal for which the institution leader takes credit,
is the achievement of individual minds despite the cost of the
useless institutional leader. Now note that the institutional
leader represents a concept, and unlike the institution name,
holds an individual mind inherently equal to other minds. Therein
is an indication that a leader who learns the controlling contradiction
of institutional thinking, can in fact create goal achievements
completely attributable to the leader as an individual, and by
chance of the phenomenon, goals of profound social and historical
value espoused by institutions. Therein, each participant earns
credit for what they actually did, rather than claiming the self-defeating
illusion of achieving what others did.

The creation of the illusion of a thinking entity, that is,
the leadership body of an organization, for which there is no
singularly functioning, physical brain attached to the organization
identification name, is an amusing phenomenon of humans. From
that recognition, one may notice the mechanisms used to maintain
such an illusion. Prominent among such mechanisms is each group
leadership accusing the other group leadership of being an enemy,
yet both are functionally doing the same thing, etcetera. Without
a fabricated enemy to distract the attention of the followers,
the organization cannot exist, since it cannot tolerate the level
of scrutiny that would identify no brain attached to the organization
name. If the organization leader's mind were sufficient in itself
to achieve goals, he would need no institutional illusion to fool
himself and others.

Foolish humans are addicted to hating the other guy. The other
guy need only have a name attached to him. Organization leaders
serve the purpose of giving him a name, such as his organization
name among other institutional identifications. The leaders therein
benefit from the results of the human addiction to hating the
other guy. The leaders need that crutch simply because they stopped
advancing their knowledge, to instead spend their time lavishing
in the self-stagnating words-for-money game. They stopped short
of learning how to achieve their goal, because they were taught
by a society of institutions that institutional thinking was the
zenith of human thought ability, and never taught how to question
that obviously flawed assumption.

Because of the nature of institutional leadership competition
as a separate concept, to be successful as an institutional leader,
one must flawlessly believe one's own institutional illusions.
Any attempt at a charade would soon enough fail, with a rival
leader more genuinely exhibiting the institutional beliefs quick
to be recognized by the institution members holding those beliefs
by definition.

Therein, the institution leader who wishes to actually achieve
the institution's goals, to thus become the genuine leader of
history, rather than merely perpetuate the rhetorical illusions
for a stagnant position of employment, must lead his own mind
through a certain labyrinth of questions no rival would hold the
courage to even approach, to thus learn the substance of what
he currently knows, learn what he prior feared to learn, and the
synthesis of both. It is the questions that are the key, and they
are only questions, mere arrangements of words. They cannot damage
you, but to the institutionally altered mind they are feared more
than death, as history so consistently proves. It is not easy
to identify those questions. Had prior leaders asked themselves
those questions at the time, they would have been truly great,
rather than those who left you with what you are working to correct.

Intellectual dark ages...

Humans are a young species still stagnated deep in the intellectual
dark ages. We still bash each other over the head in wars, and
throw each other in prisons, slaughter innocent children in their
church in Waco Texas, etcetera, almost exclusively through governmental
institutions, for the process of conveying our reasoning to the
other guy. If you are not therefore laughing at these humans,
you are missing their only current utility. They were given the
astonishing abilities of a human mind, an astonishing contradiction-resolution
device, and they remain clueless as to its basic utility, using
it to create rather than resolve contradictions.

For a learning vehicle, consider he whom many of the western
institutions have described as the least astute national leader
in the world, Mr. Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Who proved to be less
intellectually astute? Mr. George Bush of the US was so angered
by Mr. Hussein's inherently self-defeating contradictions, that,
instead of using his mind to easily out-smart Mr. Hussein's contradictions,
Mr. Bush abandoned the utility of the human mind to raw anger,
squandered billions of dollars to slaughter over a hundred thousand
human minds otherwise useful to advance the human phenomenon,
initiating the process that slaughtered many of his own countrymen
by all the mechanisms inherent to war, to leave Mr. Hussein in
power, having comparatively beaten the arrogant United States
of America yet again, garnering yet greater, rightful eastern
institution respect for Mr. Hussein. And the US government is
still denying the ongoing, deadly results of its foolish use of
toxic weapons, as it has done after every war, thus yet compounding
the contradictions at great damage to Americans. At any point
the contradictions could have been identified and resolved by
the use of the human mind, by design, without the other guy's
escape.

The above is only an example. A Kuwaiti may describe it in
words more critical of Mr. Hussein and more praising of Mr. Bush.
A Chechnyan and Russian may describe a different example with
the same words and switched reference names. The represented contradictions
and manifested results are not changed by the examples or descriptions.
The use of the mind was curtailed by institution leaders, at a
proverbial Neanderthal level, to fool their gullible followers
into bashing each other to death in an illogical attempt to convey
reasoning that is only successfully conveyed by use of the mind
alone. To use force, is to identify the opponent as more intelligent,
leaving all the military and police powers representing the nadir
of intelligence among humans. They do that by their own choice,
usually for simple fear of questioning their decisions, when they
hold a mind originally as capable as anyone else.

The past is always only a learning vehicle. While unlikely
because of institutional effects on the human mind, it is readily
possible for Mr. Hussein to utilize his prior actions, that did
not advance any genuine benefits, as a learning vehicle suggesting
the utility of entirely different technology for his next pursuits,
such as intellectual technology. Therein he could set out for
the goal, and easily become history's most respected national
leader. The process is just knowledge. It is just as available,
but more difficult for a US president to do so, or any government
leader. The greater institutional power of a US president creates
the greater barrier or fear of questions which might initially
appear to threaten that institution. And US leaders still ludicrously
believe that the US won the above-referenced war. No humans win
any war. The war wins, proving the persistent inability of institutional
humans to utilize the design of the human mind, much to the amusement
of observers.

When humans belatedly emerge from their current intellectual
dark ages, they will be amused at how humans survived the era
of bashing each other on the head and imprisoning each other,
and worshiping the leaders who contrived such process void of
thinking. Humans will therefore laugh robustly. It is only that
humans are fast breeders, like mice and flies, that sustained
their population despite their odd affinity to killing each other
for what they perceived as a contradiction-resolution process.

Military Example...

It is inherent to the design of the mind that some people will
actively pursue intellectual technology, and others will fear
it, fighting against it, while most people are too busy with other
things to even recognize the concept, as has been occurring since
the human brain was invented. As time passes, more data is discovered,
and thus more people encounter more diverse data. Therein the
parts of intellectual technology are becoming more available to
the general population. The internet has greatly accelerated that
phenomenon. Therein a greater percentage of the people are becoming
more reasoning oriented, rather than force or power oriented.
Therein military, police and other such force-based institutions,
to include the established political parties, are left with a
progressively smaller percentage of the population willing to
embarrass themselves by joining institutions predicated on shooting
each other, writing laws against each other, and imprisoning each
other (proverbially bashing each other over the head), rather
than using the same time to advance one's reasoning ability for
the obvious benefits to oneself and all humans. More people are
belatedly recognizing that humans are predicated on their mind
rather than their government's guns.

Therein the military, police and such institutions are ending
up with progressively less-thinking people, such as those too
frightened to question their superiors. The proofs are categorical.
The quality of those institutions is therefore obviously deteriorating.
The best of their self-glorifying propaganda cannot cover the
obvious results. These words can be presented to soldiers and
police, and they know that these words are correct, despite their
overt denials. They know that they are too afraid to ask their
superiors about the obvious contradictions they recognize in their
institution and the decisions of their superiors.

The common fear of questioning superiors is created by the
superiors being unable, for lack of adequate knowledge or courage,
to answer any substantive question of their obviously common institutional
contradictions, so the superiors routinely retaliate against any
subordinate who dares to question them, to discourage such questioning.
That inability to accurately answer any question is correctable
by simply practicing the asking and answering of questions, but
the superiors prior trained their mind, as subordinates, to fear
the questioning process. Upon promotion to the positions of superiors,
their title convinces their mind that they do not need to practice
anything. Their title convinces their mind that they already know
it.

In contrast to police and military personnel fearing to question
their superiors, the citizens are more concertedly questioning
the increasingly flagrant maliciousness of US military, police,
judges and such force-based government personnel, and also in
other countries affected by the information age. The citizens
are therein proven to hold more plain human courage than the soldiers
and police.

Those police and soldiers who were previously the most frightened
of questioning their superiors, and thus were the most institutionally
supportive of their superiors regardless of the contradictions
created by their superiors, and who thus remained ignorant of
all the things they did not question, were promoted as time went
by. They are now the military generals and police captains, so
entrenched in their ignorance they literally cannot answer common
citizen questions about the glaring contradictions of police and
military actions, thus causing more questions.

The damaging results within the institutions are compounding
the problems. Even those younger personnel within the institutions
themselves, who can read and function on the internet, not yet
as deeply entrenched in institutional ignorance as their superiors,
are caught in escalating frustration. The more thinking of them
quit their institutions early. Those remaining, too fearful to
question their own superiors, caught with the frustration of being
ordered by ignorant superiors to carry out obviously more illogical
actions angering more citizens, retaliate against the citizens
as scapegoats, compounding the problems. Classic examples of the
frustration are illuminated by the uniquely high suicide rate
and similar psychological problems among police, and rightfully
low morale among military personnel. There is no propaganda fix.
The public-relations and morale-boosting rhetoric compounded the
problem by creating misleading illusions while the real problems
therefore increased.

To listen to the US government and its copy-ready news-release
writers called spokespersons, lacking enough communists with which
to threaten the people, there are terrorists with bombs behind
every tree, dangerous drugs in every car, and loaded guns in every
school child's pockets. Real life keeps making a lie of the government
propaganda, and besides the citizens, the more thinking police
and military personnel recognize it.

For lack of enough communists to attack, the US Army was even
unleased on a Christian church in Waco, to slaughter innocent
women and children, when no one in the church was harming anyone,
while real news journalists were kept far away under threat of
arrest, and the government news-release writers fed the news media
what the government chaps dictated. The government sorts then
hastily bulldozed the evidence. That was the US Army and federal
police terrorist squads who merely shoved aside the local sheriff
for whom the church members would graciously open their door at
any time. To think that such dramatic examples will not occur
again, among all the less dramatic examples perpetrated by government
power-based forces desperate for budget excuses, is to display
remarkable ignorance. Power is insatiable, always.

The words of accusation or denial for any issue are only entertainment.,
and will change nothing. The citizen reaction is immaterial compared
to the reaction of the minds of the federal police and military
personnel. The actions and their trend are only data for the analysis
of minds. It is the ability to accurately question the controlling
concepts at play, which describes the human ability to resolve
the related contradictions and achieve the related goals. Nothing
herein will create a change. This web page of related concepts
only indicates the existence of a block of knowledge that if utilized
by anyone with incentive to do so, can resolve the related contradictions
and achieve goals of any magnitude.

Either the institutional leaders learn intellectual technology
to promptly resolve their spiraling contradictions, or the institutions
will do as all institutions have always done, methodically advance
to their inherent collapse, providing history's lessons of what
not to do, yet again, for those who even ask that minimal level
of questions. The difference now is a shorter interval because
of the information distribution effects of the internet. And thus
the corollary knowledge is more readily available to devise a
victory from what will otherwise be a defeat. The US military
and police, having sunk to maliciously attacking the people they
were supposed to protect, identical to the lawyers, court judges,
politicians and other power-based institutions needing an enemy
for the institutions to exist, can sufficiently question their
actions to learn the controlling contradictions, to instead benefit
the people and thus themselves, if they learn how to ask the questions
they always feared most.

There is no reason, except for raw fear of knowledge, to facilitate
a collapse of an institution, when the original concept of institutional
leadership is that of thinking sufficiently to achieve the institutional
goals. Yet while you are reading this, the military and police
leaders of the US and every nation are devising training programs
for more effective methods to attack the people with guns and
other forms of force, rather than using the same time to out-think
the related problems so there is no need to attack the people.
Because they are as described above, they literally have no concept
of how to out-think rather than out-gun a problem. And every attempt
to out-gun a problem has left the problem in place, plus the problem
created by the contradiction of attempting to out-gun what was
created by human minds. If you are a military general or police
captain, or any member of those institutions, recognize that in
fact your institution never offered you incentive to win a war
or catch real criminals without the use of guns or force, with
instead the use of your mind. And incentive is everything to the
human mind, for goal achievement. How will you verify that knowledge,
and then how will you utilize it, starting today?

On the day that any institution, inherently including the United
States Government and every other government, eventually collapses,
it is replete with leaders who literally cannot understand why
the collapse took place. Some of them later recognize what they
could have prior recognized if they simply thought a bit more.
They simply did not prior ask the questions which would lead to
the understanding and thus the correction of the problem the prior
day.